Ancient arrow penetration on roman armour?

[Folkert van Wijk]

Reading about all the arrow shooting tribe's that where fighting the Romans I keep wonder how effective arrows and bows of the period where back then against Roman armour.

To give the discussion and hopefully the answers some direction I would like to give the following starting points:

1) I am talking about a shower of arrows and thus not about accuracy
2) A distance of 175m (575ft)

Angle:
3a Horizontal (more or less)
3b 45% degree
3c falling Straight down after being shot with an high angle arch.

Weapon:
4a) Scythian bows
4b) Hunnic bows
4c) Europian selfbow

Target
5a) Roman shield (scutum)
6a) Hamata
6b) Hamata shoulder dubbler
7a) Segmentata
7b) Segmentata Shoulder
8a) Roman Helmet Iron
8b) Roman Helmet Bronze

Penetration.
9a) Deadly (all the way trough)
9b) Wounding (a couple of centimeters trough)
9c) now effect (bouncing of...)

I could think of a lot more variables, but I think this would do it for now...

So what do you people think...???

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I know Hunnic Bows were more effective than the Scythian ones, as they were able to overpower Sarmatian Cataphracts before they could close, unlike the Scythians. But I dont' know much mroe than that, interested to hear what you all think.

[Vindex]

In amongst the categories listed for the effect of arrows, is there some room for the psychological effect those fired upon thought the arrows would do?

Or would this be straying off topic?

[Robert]

Interesting question! At 175 meters, the arrow will have lost a good part of its initial velocity due to drag of shaft and feathers. A horizontal shot is out, 40-45 degrees would be more likely, even with a powerfull bow. If a Roman body of men were to be aware of the imminant arrowshower (somebody shouts the Latin equevalent of "Incoming!"), the large rectangular ply shield of the legionairy can be used to squat behind. That way, the chances of getting hit are very greatly reduced. A ply shield will stop an arrow, even a bodkin. Ply is tough! Oval shields offer less protection, and the bits sticking out would be unarmored (feet, legs, arms). But your question was about armor. An arrow would at that distance glances off all plate (helmets, segs) and will not penetrate mail, unless the point is a needle bodkin.

When fired at a steep angle upward, the defense will be less, shields would have to be held overhead. But the arrows would be much more prone to windeffects, at the top of the curve the speed is near nil, after that the acceleration of the falling arrow would be 10 meters per second. The endspeed would be the height from which it came, less the friction. The volley would be spread over a far larger area and could well miss the Romans all together. Should they hit, again the armor hit should stop penetration.

[Dan Howard]

Most of the Roman mail that I've seen is a pretty dense weave. Even a narrow arrow-head (e.g. bodkin) wouldn't penetrate unless shot from a heavy bow at close range. It would have to break links just like any other arrowhead.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

"Incoming!"

Invenientem/es I think.

I have to agree with Dan Howard and Robert, at that range Maile would protect the wearer.

[Marja]

Unless they're armoured head-to-toe, it makes more sense to estimate the exposed/unarmored area, and just round up slightly for the chances of an arrow coming through the armor.

[Robert]

@Dan A needle bodkin is like a nail on a socket, it doesn't need to break the link to penetrate. But penetration is limited to the length of the point.

[Folkert van Wijk]

To start, my aim is to get an idea of the battlefield and the stages of the battle and the succes of the steppe archers against the Romans.

1) yes I would like to rule out the psychological effect of fear, if you don't mind.

2)I am now expert at archery, so I chose the distance of 175 meters because in the osprey book "Mounted Archers of the Steppe 600BC-AD1300" The writer states that 175 would be realistic distance for the the everage archer to shoot... If a nother distance would be better I am more then willing to change that?

3)My thought was also that a ply-shield would stop an arrow, but I think that the arrow would go half way though before getting to a hold. And so would still be able to harm the men behind it to some degree...

4)I also read somewhere that the archers would shoot at an enemy in different arches to have the arrows incoming at different angles making it for the targeted men impossible to deflect all the arrows...

5) So basically you people say that roman armor would stop and deflect al arrows. And so only the arrows that hit the exposes bare body parts are the ones that eventually make the Roman formations brake down?

[Dan Howard]

@Dan A needle bodkin is like a nail on a socket, it doesn't need to break the link to penetrate. But penetration is limited to the length of the point.

It needs to break a link to hurt the wearer. I can list accounts where fighters stop to pluck arrows out of their mail before continuing with the battle.

5) So basically you people say that roman armor would stop and deflect al arrows. And so only the arrows that hit the exposes bare body parts are the ones that eventually make the Roman formations brake down?

If you shoot enough arrows at someone eventually one of them is going to find a spot that isn't armoured. Also keep in mind that an arrow through the foot takes a person out of the fight just as surely as an arrow through the heart.

[Quintus Aurelius Lepidus]

richard gabriël states in his book Man and wound in the ancient World that 10% of the wounds caused on the battlefield is caused by arrows. Of this, about 42% is lethal... Places which are most frequently hit are neck, legs, arms. neck wounds are almost always fatal... leg and arm wounds can cause fatal shock or serious bleedings when arteries are hit...

hope this helps??

[Kegluneq]

Penetration.
9a) Deadly (all the way trough)
9b) Wounding (a couple of centimeters trough)
9c) now effect (bouncing of...)

Er, an arrow doesn't have to penetrate that deeply to be fatal, especially if it hits an exposed limb or the neck. Even a few inches can prove fatal pretty much anywhere on the body.

If you're talking about an arrow storm (arching high over the enemy, untargeted) then I think you're talking about a strike with a great deal less force than a more directly aimed shot. The biggest risk I would think would be arrows to the eyes - we often hear of soldiers losing eyes in battle and the low speed of an arrow-storm arrow might be a more reasonable explanation than a close range shot.

[M. Demetrius]

"Incoming!"
Invenientem/es I think.

In the Tactica, and I think the source is the Strategikon, we use the word "Tela!" (missiles) to announce the impending arrival of arrows, slingstones, javelins, or whatever. The soldiers raise their shields to deflect and protect.

[Legio17]

mile: I am in the middle of writing my second book about a fighting Roman Legion and I needed to read this discussion about the effects of arrows against Roman armor and shield. Can't thank everyone enough for your enlightening comments. Love this website!